That's about 340 million people.

No, thats for learning about computers as a subject.

They need computers that aren't locked down "golden cages" that can do the basics but can ALSO do non-basic things for people to learn, adapt, and understand how to go beyond a few rigid rules.

Part of the issue is with those devices is they are locked down, and actively discourage trying anything "new" or "exploring". It's been well commented and stated that tablets and Apple computers are "golden cages", and when you raise a child in a "cage" that actively prevent them from trying to do anything out of the basic guidelines you can't expect them to become adults and suddenly think "outside" of a cage and it's limits.

So many of us here grew up with computers from a young age and didn't have these problems and self-imposed limits. But then again, we didn't have devices that actively fought against us from tinkering, trying, and learning new things.

Except this isnt about online games. Its why there is the mentioning of "certain games", because it only deals with certain games.

Its not dealing with if WoW suddenly goes offline, or FF14, or any other MMO. Those are online only games, and are strickly based on online gaming modes. They arent going to demand an offline mode or eternally run servers, or anything like that. Not even open sourcing the server code (there are sometimes legal issues with this, go see the whole WinAmp source code issue about why this can be an issue.)

The issue is more along the lines of if the Diablo servers stop running and you can no longer playing Diablo offline in single player mode that is already built into it. There is no reason that this should be tied into a suddenly dead server, and this is about making it sure that if they decide at some point to turn off the server, then at that point they need to remove the server check altogether. They arent saying they need to remove DRM either, it can just be a different form that isnt tied to a dead server.

Fuck me, another person who doesn't know how tariffs work.

Those Alpha Centurions, they're eating the cats! They're eating the dogs!

Sir John Kerr didn't wait for Gough Whitlam's government to ask his advice when he dismissed Kerr and his government. Quite the opposite, the minute Whitlam got a hint that the Governor General might fire him his first thought was to get a hold of the Queen to fire Kerr.

The moment a government in a Westminster parliament loses a confidence vote, they become a caretaker government, a very constitutionally bounded creature. More importantly, their ability to advise the Sovereign/Governor General becomes extremely limited; they can't advise the GG to make new appointments, make most orders in council, or pretty much anything beyond keep basic organs of government going.

In a no confidence situation, it becomes the Governor General's job to figure out what to do next, and the government, being a caretaker, no longer can advise on the use of Royal Prerogatives such as dissolution or appointing new ministers (a new government).

A caretaker PM can certainly tell the GG what he thinks, but as happened in British Columbia in 2017, when the Premier of the province, having lost a confidence motion on the Throne Speech, tried to convince the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the legislature and call new elections, the vice-regal representative is under none of the obligations that a premier or PM who enjoys the confidence of Parliament has. In that case, the LG simply rejected the advice, and asked the opposition leader to form a government.

This is why the concept of confidence (and its loss) is far a better moderator of government excesses than the much older notion of impeachment. The latter evolved as Parliament in England gained more authority, but could not directly go after the King, so would often go after the King's ministers and agents through the use of impeachment. But even by the American revolution, impeachment in the Westminster constitutional order had fallen into disuse in preference to confidence. One of the first governments to fall to a loss of confidence was the Ministry of Lord North, after the defeat of the British in the War of Independence.

In general, I don't think someone of Trump's demeanor would ever be able to get away with as much in a Westminster government. Boris Johnson probably pushed the margins as much as any modern Prime Minister in the UK, and in the end he was effectively removed by his own party. It was an even swifter judgment for Liz Truss, who ended up serving the shortest amount of time as PM, beating George Canning, who died in office after 119 days in 1827.

Here in BC we've had multiple Premiers forced to resign. The closest analog to Trump was Bill Vander Zalm, who was accused of a serious conflict of interest over the sale of one his personal properties. He hung on for some time after the allegations became public, and while he ultimately resigned in disgrace, his cabinet was sufficiently worried that he might ignore all pleas to depart that they they hatched a scheme with the Lieutenant-Governor to have the government vote no confidence in itself, which would have forced Vander Zalm to resign, and then the Lieutenant-Governor would ask the designated member of cabinet to form a new government.

In short, in the Westminster system, the Sovereign and his representatives hold certain reserve powers that function as negative powers; almost never used, but the mere fact that they do not accessible by the government of the day creates a ceiling on the constitutional games that can be played. What's more, there are both visible ways to get rid of errant PMs and Premiers (leadership reviews, cabinet revolts, caucus revolts) and much quieter ones (ministers using their access to the King/GG/LG to get around a head of government).

The US put all its eggs in one basket by making a unified singular executive with powers commensurate with a Tudor-era monarch, the Westminster system created a split executive, with an Efficient part that does all the ruling, and a Dignified part that reigns.

The wealthy aren't going to go first, and the sacrifices will be imposed. Oddly enough, the universe doesn't give a fuck how you feel.

He did no such thing, and warned against Brexit, which caused the economic crash.

You do know we can tell when you're lying.

85% of the population lives in urban areas, the average commute time is well under half an hour. Quit making shit up.

I live in southern BC. We haven't had a snowfall here that lasted more than a few hours, and almost the entire winter has been above 0.

People have raised families in all manner of housing arrangements. Don't confuse cultural norms with actual human requirements.

Your way of life is effectively subsidized, and at some point it simply will not be affordable. The difficulty supplying water alone in many parts of the US will basically cause suburbs to die. Your notion of personal freedoms cannot override reality, no matter how often you pound the table.

Yeah, I have no more confidence in the states, or sufficient numbers of states, to solve the problem than an amendment.